Dear President Obama,
I am deeply concerned by the 'cratering' economy. I will be entering the job market in a few months, after getting a graduate degree in a field that survives best in strong economies. Needless to say, I'm a little concerned that I will have trouble finding a job which best fits my background and interests. I'm heavily invested in how the government and corporations respond to the current recession. And I have to tell you, for the last two weeks, I have become increasingly convinced that your response is no real response. The condemnatory statements you make regarding those responsible for the meltdown may be important to convey our shared outrage at the way financial organizations have played ducks and drakes with our future but it is far more important to demonstrate with action towards resolving many of these issues. I need you to be president now, not judge and jury. And please rein in the various arms of government that are similarly mired in the blame game. The Senate and Congress seem intent on reminding us who is responsible and convening special hearings to keep this memory alive. I understand the importance of serving justice but there is time enough to have hearings after we have stopped the downward spiral of the economy, and have helped Americans get their jobs and homes back.
Actions speaks louder than words may be a cliche phrase but its true nonetheless.
Sincerely Yours,
A Citizen
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Monday, March 23, 2009
Shady Activities
The neighbours at the back have a small greenhouse in their yard (a yard which is incidentally completely surrounded by other houses so no view from the road) which is left with lights on all night.
Does that mean what I'm thinking it means?
Does that mean what I'm thinking it means?
Friday, March 20, 2009
Random thoughts on these (bleep) papers
It's an interesting commentary on life when folding laundry is used as an excuse not to work on marking.
Why does grading in red pen seem more evil than other colours?
It's bizarre that camels on a slide are described as horses by a student. Should I make a sarcastic comment about someone needing glasses or is that just too mean? I think its harsh, maybe I'll leave it off and my boss won't get mad at me.
In a class called "Islamic art and architecture", writing that an object is from 'Islamic culture' is just a little bit obvious.
Dating a painting from said class as 667 C.E. is hopelessly wrong for so many reasons.
Also, if you haven't learned anything else in this class, at least know that figurative images do not appear in Qurans. Really...
And if you don't know the answer and are going to make something up, at least be creative so I can have a good laugh and give you a marginally better bad mark on the answer.
Why does grading in red pen seem more evil than other colours?
It's bizarre that camels on a slide are described as horses by a student. Should I make a sarcastic comment about someone needing glasses or is that just too mean? I think its harsh, maybe I'll leave it off and my boss won't get mad at me.
In a class called "Islamic art and architecture", writing that an object is from 'Islamic culture' is just a little bit obvious.
Dating a painting from said class as 667 C.E. is hopelessly wrong for so many reasons.
Also, if you haven't learned anything else in this class, at least know that figurative images do not appear in Qurans. Really...
And if you don't know the answer and are going to make something up, at least be creative so I can have a good laugh and give you a marginally better bad mark on the answer.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
The definition of journalism
Is Jon Stewart a journalist or a comedian? Can he be both?
The Daily Show may be a comedy fake news show but it has begun functioning almost like a journalistic fact check for many members of Mr. Stewart's audience. They like a smart guy who cracks jokes poking fun at our political system and its participants while also exposing their flaws. They like his refreshing bluntness and tongue-in-cheek repartee. What does it say about the state of cable news that some have started to look for the 'truth' in a comedy show?
I think this was highlighted in 2004 when Jon Stewart (not the Daily Show) took the hosts of Crossfire to task for their 'partisan hackery' (I think that's exactly how he labelled it) and told them to stop 'hurting America' in the now infamous interview. And it was a hugely successful critique, both in real time and the future: It's memorable when Tucker Carlson questioned Stewart on his soft-balling of John Kerry on the Daily Show, and was reminded that the Daily Show was on a comedy channel, was a fake news show preceded by prank-calling puppets. Crossfire was cancelled soon after and Stewart was referenced in the decision to pull the show.
We saw glimpses of the same this past week with Stewart and his crew hammering CNBC's terrible coverage of the economic world in the last couple of years. The culmination of three days of Santelli et. al. bashing was the interview (if we can call a mostly one-sided conversation that) of Jim Cramer on the Daily Show. Stewart lambasted Cramer, the entire CNBC crew, and implicated other financial news networks in a searing crossfire (pun intended), accusing them of complicity through their terrible reporting of financial markets and companies. Cramer was left sitting in a swamp of defeat and mea culpas. I especially liked when Stewart said the networks knew what was going in, in terms of hyper inflation and crazy odds, and did nothing, said nothing: "For now to pretend that this was some sort of crazy, once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody could have seen coming is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst.”
I wholeheartedly agree with Stewart and echo his frustration with the games played by various financiers and other complicit actors. And I agreed with his opposition to dumbed down, entertainment-centric news reporting. But what is the place of Jon Stewart in this debacle? Why does he adopt such a serious demeanour and eviscerate those who are, in his opinion, doing a disservice to America(ns)? He certainly has every right as a citizen of this country, but I am more interested in his role on television as a comedian. I ask this question because the only real criticism of Stewart that comes up in the media relating to this is his position of being able to question and then fall back into the seemingly impartial role of the comedian where he cannot be questioned because "its not real." Is this fair? I don't actually have an opinion on this question. So while personally I am very happy to see any talk of responsible journalism, especially in the arena of televised news which is so focused upon that distasteful word; infotainment, I am also unsure of who should be asking these questions.
The Daily Show may be a comedy fake news show but it has begun functioning almost like a journalistic fact check for many members of Mr. Stewart's audience. They like a smart guy who cracks jokes poking fun at our political system and its participants while also exposing their flaws. They like his refreshing bluntness and tongue-in-cheek repartee. What does it say about the state of cable news that some have started to look for the 'truth' in a comedy show?
I think this was highlighted in 2004 when Jon Stewart (not the Daily Show) took the hosts of Crossfire to task for their 'partisan hackery' (I think that's exactly how he labelled it) and told them to stop 'hurting America' in the now infamous interview. And it was a hugely successful critique, both in real time and the future: It's memorable when Tucker Carlson questioned Stewart on his soft-balling of John Kerry on the Daily Show, and was reminded that the Daily Show was on a comedy channel, was a fake news show preceded by prank-calling puppets. Crossfire was cancelled soon after and Stewart was referenced in the decision to pull the show.
We saw glimpses of the same this past week with Stewart and his crew hammering CNBC's terrible coverage of the economic world in the last couple of years. The culmination of three days of Santelli et. al. bashing was the interview (if we can call a mostly one-sided conversation that) of Jim Cramer on the Daily Show. Stewart lambasted Cramer, the entire CNBC crew, and implicated other financial news networks in a searing crossfire (pun intended), accusing them of complicity through their terrible reporting of financial markets and companies. Cramer was left sitting in a swamp of defeat and mea culpas. I especially liked when Stewart said the networks knew what was going in, in terms of hyper inflation and crazy odds, and did nothing, said nothing: "For now to pretend that this was some sort of crazy, once-in-a-lifetime tsunami that nobody could have seen coming is disingenuous at best and criminal at worst.”
I wholeheartedly agree with Stewart and echo his frustration with the games played by various financiers and other complicit actors. And I agreed with his opposition to dumbed down, entertainment-centric news reporting. But what is the place of Jon Stewart in this debacle? Why does he adopt such a serious demeanour and eviscerate those who are, in his opinion, doing a disservice to America(ns)? He certainly has every right as a citizen of this country, but I am more interested in his role on television as a comedian. I ask this question because the only real criticism of Stewart that comes up in the media relating to this is his position of being able to question and then fall back into the seemingly impartial role of the comedian where he cannot be questioned because "its not real." Is this fair? I don't actually have an opinion on this question. So while personally I am very happy to see any talk of responsible journalism, especially in the arena of televised news which is so focused upon that distasteful word; infotainment, I am also unsure of who should be asking these questions.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Question
What's worse?
1. Michelle Obama continuously showing her bare arms to the public
OR
2. The Obamas' DVD gift to the British PM
This is a rhetorical question.
Please note that the offensiveness of the action is inversely proportional to how hyped it was in the American media.
1. Michelle Obama continuously showing her bare arms to the public
OR
2. The Obamas' DVD gift to the British PM
This is a rhetorical question.
Please note that the offensiveness of the action is inversely proportional to how hyped it was in the American media.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Losing all your money? Hate your bank? Doesn't everyone?
As conventional banks fail left, right, and centre, here is an alternative. Perusing the environment section of the New York Times, I recently came across the term, "ethical bank". Now you may laugh at the oxymoron (ethical? banks? who knew?), but its real, I kid you not.
Ethical banks are simply banks who invest savings in socially responsible projects (e.g. wind farms) to benefit communities and make money simultaneously. So it's basically banks that are much clearer about where your savings are going (i.e. into the real economy) rather than tying it up into bundled investments which MAY eventually see the light of day outside the stock market (which originally I misspelled stick markey...appropriate in its absurdity). According to Simon Birch at The Guardian, ethical banks like the European bank Troidos are doing quite well in the current economic climate because they do not suffer from the hyper-inflation that conventional banking systems are vulnerable to (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/oct/18/savings-ethicalmoney). There is, of course, a downside to ethical banks: lower interest rates. Since they are a safe and stable investment (for the most part), interest rates remain low, though also stable, which is far more attractive to most clients. Especially when you know your investment will not benefit humans-rights abusers, the environement, etc.
After seeing the term in NYT and after doing a bit of research, I got quite excited and am seriously thinking about moving my savings into one of these banks as part of my growing move towards environmentalism and greater social responsibility.
Its an interesting model because I think its one that would work well in the developing world as well, especially if its combined with microfinance institutions who already know quite a bit about socially responsible finance. You can find out more about ethical banking on Wikipedia (I'm horrified to promote wikipedia as a source since I consistently tell my students that it is not a valid source) or you can check out the following known ethical banks:
--Troidos Bank (Europe)
--Co-operative Bank (UK)
--Wainwright Bank (USA)
--Shore Bank (USA)
--RSF Social Finance (USA)--actually its an investment firm, not a bank per se
--Citizens Bank (Canada)
Of course, like any system, I'm sure this one has its own faults but I think the the benefit of more direct investment as well as the social responsibility aspect make it worth looking at.
P.S. Similar posts have been written about Islamic banking recently: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/economy/803/can_islam_save_the_economy
Ethical banks are simply banks who invest savings in socially responsible projects (e.g. wind farms) to benefit communities and make money simultaneously. So it's basically banks that are much clearer about where your savings are going (i.e. into the real economy) rather than tying it up into bundled investments which MAY eventually see the light of day outside the stock market (which originally I misspelled stick markey...appropriate in its absurdity). According to Simon Birch at The Guardian, ethical banks like the European bank Troidos are doing quite well in the current economic climate because they do not suffer from the hyper-inflation that conventional banking systems are vulnerable to (http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/oct/18/savings-ethicalmoney). There is, of course, a downside to ethical banks: lower interest rates. Since they are a safe and stable investment (for the most part), interest rates remain low, though also stable, which is far more attractive to most clients. Especially when you know your investment will not benefit humans-rights abusers, the environement, etc.
After seeing the term in NYT and after doing a bit of research, I got quite excited and am seriously thinking about moving my savings into one of these banks as part of my growing move towards environmentalism and greater social responsibility.
Its an interesting model because I think its one that would work well in the developing world as well, especially if its combined with microfinance institutions who already know quite a bit about socially responsible finance. You can find out more about ethical banking on Wikipedia (I'm horrified to promote wikipedia as a source since I consistently tell my students that it is not a valid source) or you can check out the following known ethical banks:
--Troidos Bank (Europe)
--Co-operative Bank (UK)
--Wainwright Bank (USA)
--Shore Bank (USA)
--RSF Social Finance (USA)--actually its an investment firm, not a bank per se
--Citizens Bank (Canada)
Of course, like any system, I'm sure this one has its own faults but I think the the benefit of more direct investment as well as the social responsibility aspect make it worth looking at.
P.S. Similar posts have been written about Islamic banking recently: http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/economy/803/can_islam_save_the_economy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)